The Trump Class "Battleship" is a Lie (But It's Railgun Isn't)

Get my Department of the Boat People shirt here

The so-called “Trump-class battleship” isn’t really about Trump, and it isn’t really a battleship.

It’s about something the U.S. Navy quietly walked away from years ago:

The railgun.

In this video, I break down why the Navy didn’t abandon railguns because they failed, but because they didn’t fit modern naval doctrine.

By the time the program slowed down, railguns had already demonstrated:

* Hypersonic muzzle velocities

* Non-explosive kinetic kill mechanisms

* Per-shot costs measured in tens of thousands, not millions

* That last part matters — a lot.

Missiles are incredible weapons, but they are expensive, logistically fragile, and doctrinally dominant. Once you fire one, it’s gone. A railgun fires a chunk of metal, over and over, with devastating penetration and cost asymmetry that missiles can’t match.

So why did the Navy shelve it?

Because railguns don’t fit:

* Missile-centric doctrine

* Procurement incentives

* PowerPoint-friendly kill chains

And that’s where this new ship concept gets interesting.

A large, power-rich surface combatant creates political and doctrinal cover for weapons that need:

* Massive electrical power

* Thermal capacity

* Deep magazines

* Sustained fires

In other words, a railgun finally has a home again.

This isn’t about nostalgia, sci-fi, or battleships making a comeback.

It’s about logistics, cost, and staying in the fight.

And if missiles keep getting more expensive while wars keep getting longer, the Navy may have to rethink some very uncomfortable assumptions.

For uncensored video, check out my substack at:

Like my shirts? Get your own at:

Want a personalized greeting:

Watch all of my long form videos:

Twitter:

@ryanmcbeth

Instagram:

@therealryanmcbeth

BlueSky

@ryanmcbeth

Reddit:

/r/ryanmcbeth

Join the conversation:

Want to send me something?

Ryan McBeth Productions LLC

8705 Colesville Rd.

Suite 249

Silver Spring, MD 20910

USA